Pages

Showing posts with label Xi Jinping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Xi Jinping. Show all posts

Monday, February 26

Rise of Xi Jinping - The Hindu (26.02.18)


(Latest Op-Ed First; Verbatim Compilation of The Hindu Op-Ed; Best to read in the order of oldest to latest article to get a comprehensive understanding; Consider repetition to be revision)

CPC clears the decks for third term for Xi (26.02.18)

Communist party for lifting two-term limit on Presidency

China on Sunday cleared the decks for President Xi Jinping’s third consecutive term in office, ahead of a crucial session of parliament next month.

China’s Xinhua news agency reported that Communist Party of China (CPC) proposed on Sunday that the President and the Vice-President will not be constitutionally restricted to two consecutive terms in office. This, in effect, means that Mr. Xi, who is serving his second consecutive five-year term, can continue beyond 2023.

Role for ally

Analysts point out that the removal of a two-term restriction on the Vice-President is also significant. There is speculation that Wang Qishan, the country’s anti-corruption czar and Mr. Xi’s trusted ally, who officially retired in November, could be reappointed as Vice-President.

Alternatively, he could head a new National Supervisory Commission that will be empowered to throw its dragnet beyond the 86 million members of the CPC, including private business houses. Xinhua said the CPC had proposed that the expression that the President and the Vice-President “shall serve no more than two consecutive terms” be removed from the Constitution.

More time for reforms

Some observers, however, highlight that the CPC’s move is not confined to Mr. Xi’s term, but is a deeper long-term initiative. “I think the biggest issue is the transition of power after Mr. Xi, as the work he is doing to reform the party and economy is substantial and necessary,” political commentator Einar Tangen, told The Hindu . He added: “Due to the massive changes in government, and with more to come, it is probable that to implement these changes and let them take root, he [Mr. Xi] will need more time.”

The announcement came after the powerful 25-member Politburo met on Saturday. On Monday, the Central Committee of the CPC will meet to discuss the proposed changes. The flurry of political activity will culminate in the March 3 session of the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s parliament. The NPC will give final shape to major decisions taken at the National Party Congress held in October 2017.

Xinhua also reported that the party proposed that Mr. Xi’s political theory — Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era — be written into the Constitution. Besides, the formation of the National Supervisory Commission, as a constitutional entity, was planned.

XXX

The rise and rise of Xi Jinping (04.11.17)

The recently-concluded 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China was an intricately choreographed political theatre which showcased President Xi Jinping’s primacy, his vision and his status as the helmsman of the party and the nation. China’s confidence in the validity of its chosen path and its ambitions of “restoring” its global leadership role were also on full display.

While this conclave was more about reaffirmation of trends evolving since Mr. Xi’s ascendance to power at the 18th Party Congress, rather than charting out new policy directions, it has significant implications for India.

Signature ideology

The Congress has confirmed Mr. Xi’s standing as the most powerful Chinese leader in the post-Deng era. His vision for the future of China, “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era”, is enshrined in the party constitution as part of its guiding ideology.

A Xinhua commentary gushingly suggests that “Xi Jinping’s thought will be China’s signature ideology and the new communism”, the implication being that it supersedes and encompasses the doctrinal offerings of previous leaders.

Mr. Xi has become the only leader after Mao (with his “Mao Zedong Thought”) to have his eponymous ideological contribution written into the party charter while in office. “Deng Xiaoping Theory” was adopted after Deng’s death, and contributions of two of Mr. Xi’s predecessors, Hu Jintao (“Scientific Outlook”) and Jiang Zemin (“Three Represents”), are not named after them.

While this self-elevation and his position as the “lingxiu”, a wise and great leader, makes Mr. Xi the principal arbiter of China’s future directions over the next five years and possibly beyond, it is does not yet put him on a par with Mao and Deng. Arguably, Deng did not need a theory named after him or to hold many offices to bring about transformational changes in China. Mr. Xi is a transformative leader in the making but has a long way to go before he can rival Mao and Deng in impact and legacy.

Mr. Xi has, however, taken decisive steps to move away from Deng’s legacy in four key areas: collective leadership; identification of successors well ahead of the transfer of power; a measure of differentiation between the party and the state; and the dictum of China biding its time, keeping a low profile and never claiming leadership.

Deng had institutionalised collective leadership to correct the problems of “excessive concentration of power” witnessed under Mao. With Mr. Xi steadily accumulating levers of authority and eliminating rivals, there has been a shift towards personalised rule in his first term and now at the Party Congress. The erosion of checks that it involves has attendant risks for China.

The new team

The new Politburo is packed with Mr. Xi’s close associates. By one count, there are as many as 14 of his allies among 25 members of the Politburo. However, the composition of the seven-member Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) is more balanced and possibly the result of a compromise, thus suggesting limits to Mr. Xi’s authority. Premier Li Keqiang has retained his position, along with Mr. Xi, and of five new members, only one (Li Zhanshu) is seen as a Xi protégé, while others have links to his predecessors but cannot be described as rivals. Mr. Xi had changed virtually all Provincial Party Secretaries in the months ahead of the 19th Congress, and appointments since the Congress have underlined his sway over personnel matters.

In another departure from the post-Deng practice, no potential successor to Mr. Xi has been included in the new line-up of the PBSC. This has kept open the possibility of him staying on as the paramount leader or the power behind the throne well beyond 2022, when he completes his second term as the party leader.

Though the party constitution rules out “life tenure”, it sets no term limits for any office, unlike the state constitution which has a two-term limit for presidency and other senior positions. It is still too early to figure out how the post-2022 scenario will pan out, but it seems unlikely today that Mr. Xi will completely exit from the leadership position as his predecessor Hu Jintao did at the end of his second term.

The absence of a succession plan has potential perils in a party which has witnessed destructive factional feuds in the past.

Mr. Xi’s penchant for the dominance of the party, including in the economic domain, has received a boost at the Congress. In his work report, he reaffirmed a key message of his 2013 third plenum policy statement that the market should play the “decisive” role in allocation of resources but the state would take the “leading role” in the economy. His preference for maintaining a strong state and party role in the economy with minimal privatisation of state-owned assets and firm control over social and financial risks is unlikely to change in the wake of the Congress. Likewise, while he is positioning China as a defender of globalisation, it comes with a strong dose of mercantilism.

For India, one key outcome of the party conclave is the articulation of China’s increasingly explicit great power ambitions. In his speech, Mr. Xi talked about China becoming “a global leader of composite national strength and international influence” and moving closer to the centre-stage by mid-century. A Xinhua commentary of October 24 is more candid: “By 2050… China is set to regain its might and re-ascend to the top of the world.”

In sync with Mr. Xi’s “Chinese dream” enunciated five years ago, an overarching theme of the Party Congress was the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and “restoration” of China’s centrality on the global stage. In his speech, Mr. Xi spoke of China as a “strong country” or “great power” as many as 30 times, jettisoning the earlier coyness about the country’s great power ambitions.

The preoccupation with building up global combat capabilities to safeguard China’s overseas interests also figures prominently in Mr. Xi’s vision. Arguably the most ambitious restructuring of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the last 50 years currently underway is focussed on joint command, power projection capability and the party’s control on the military. Mr. Xi has set the goal of completing modernisation of the armed forces by 2035 and transforming the PLA into a world-class military by 2050.

In a significant departure from China’s position in the post-Mao period of not seeking to export its model, Mr. Xi has suggested that “the Chinese path… offers a new option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving their independence, and it offers Chinese wisdom and approach to solving problems facing mankind”. It is to be seen how far China will go to promote its model as an alternative to liberal, capitalist democracy and the “Washington Consensus”.

However, China is likely to intensify its efforts to shape its periphery and forge a “world community of shared destiny” centred around it. With the U.S. in temporary retreat and the West distracted by internal challenges, China considers this to be a period of strategic opportunity to take its great power project to the next level in the new era that Mr. Xi has envisioned.

The BRI gauntlet

Mr. Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the key instrument in this grand strategy and it is now embedded in the party constitution. There is nothing to suggest that China is inclined to address India’s concerns about the BRI.

In a development possibly linked to China’s enhanced global agenda, for the first time since 2003, the Politburo includes a diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi. As the Chinese special representative for boundary talks with India, he has had extensive interactions with us.

It may also be noted that since his 2014 visit to India, President Xi has emerged as the principal Chinese interlocutor for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In the past, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh engaged primarily with Premier Wen Jiabao. Given Mr. Xi’s pre-eminence, his being personally invested in the relationship with India has its advantages.

Looking ahead, a more assertive China will be one of the most critical factors shaping India’s external environment, apart from engendering new challenges in the management of bilateral relations, more so as the footprints of the two re-emergent countries will increasingly overlap.

Ashok K. Kantha, a former Ambassador of India to China, is Director of the Institute of Chinese Studies and Distinguished Fellow with Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi

XXX

The rise and rise of Xi Jinping (31.10.17)

With the new title of ‘core leader’, President Xi Jinping has further cemented his authority within the Communist Party of China and the government. Already the party chief, the head of state, the commander-in-chief of the military and the one in charge of the group overseeing the change in the economy, he is now on a par with Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. This concentration of power in Mr. Xi’s hands stands in sharp contrast with the ‘collective responsibility’ dictum the party propagated during the Hu Jintao regime. Mr. Hu was not called a core leader. From the beginning, Mr. Xi had signalled he would be a leader different from his immediate predecessor. He gradually emerged as the most influential leader at least since Deng, and demonstrated his authority by launching a massive clean-up in the name of fighting corruption, that felled top leaders of the party and the military. Corruption is a major problem in today’s China. The high economic growth that followed the reforms initiated by Deng spawned massive, institutionalised corruption, stoking public anger against the establishment. Mr. Xi built his war on “corrupt officials” against the backdrop of such a mood of anger, and his efforts have been generally well-received despite criticism that he is using the campaign to amass powers to himself. The party plenum, by appointing Mr. Xi as the core leader, has sent a clear message to the public that it stands by him and his policies.

The timing of the appointment is significant. The plenum kicks off year-long preparations for the party congress next year, which could shake up the leadership. Five of the seven current members of the Politburo Standing Committee, the inner sanctum of power in China, and a third of the Politburo’s 18 members are due to retire next year. Being the core leader, Mr. Xi will be in a stronger position to influence the outcome of the congress. As in the case of his predecessors, Mr. Xi would certainly prefer to have the Standing Committee filled with his allies. But this doesn’t mean that Mr. Xi is guaranteed a second term free of challenges and of unchecked power. If the Hu Jintao era, despite some allegations of corruption, is regarded as one of prosperous and peaceful rise for China, Mr. Xi’s term has been marked by slowing economic growth and geopolitical tensions. Even if Mr. Xi gathers unprecedented powers in the party and the state, his tenure will be judged by how he addresses fundamental problems that China faces, including systemic inequities and foreign policy challenges, while managing the economic rebalance process.

XXX

The life of Xi (26.10.17)

When Xi Jinping was elected the leader of China and the Communist Party five years ago, many had predicted that he would become the most powerful leader since Deng Xiaoping, the architect of the country’s economic rise. They may be wrong. With the 19th party congress, which concluded on Tuesday and has written his name and ideas into the party constitution, Mr. Xi now appears to be the strongest leader since Mao Zedong. This amassing of Mao-like powers could also allow Mr. Xi to stay in power beyond the usual two terms. Two of Mr. Xi’s predecessors had stepped down after two terms to ensure an orderly transition in the party and the government, where there is no dearth of talented and ambitious leaders. The practice has been for the mid-term party congress to choose the likely successor of the incumbent and groom him over five years to eventually take over the reins. However, the party doesn’t seem to have chosen anyone this time. All five new faces in the seven-member Politburo Standing Committee, the highest decision-making body in China, are in their 60s, which lends credence to speculation that Mr. Xi is not planning to step down when his second term ends in 2022. Even if he does step down from the government, given the stature he has already achieved within the party, he could retain a Deng-like sway over policy matters.

In Mr. Xi’s world view, China has passed two eras — the revolutionary era launched by Mao and the economic reforms spearheaded by Deng. The “Xi Jinping thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era” that has been written into the party charter marks “a new era”. This one is about making China economically stronger and geopolitically more influential. In his three-and-a-half-hour speech at the congress, Mr. Xi placed great emphasis on strengthening the military and resisting “the whole range of erroneous viewpoints”. The message is that the era of “peaceful rise” is over. The more combative foreign policy Mr. Xi’s administration is pursuing will continue, perhaps more aggressively, while at home he will consolidate more power. But this doesn’t mean it will be a cakewalk. If China takes a more aggressive, militaristic view of its neighbourhood, it could trigger an aggressive response from neighbours such as India and Japan. North Korea remains as much a foreign policy problem for Mr. Xi as for President Donald Trump. China’s export-oriented economy is still not free from the global economic whirlwinds. Mr. Xi will have to factor in global market concerns while taking key economic decisions at home. Besides, though the transition in the Communist Party has been orderly at least in the last 30 years, it was not free from troubles. Mr. Xi would be mindful of how he projects his own power, lest it triggers a backlash. The challenge before him is to find a balance between his ambitions and the realities that China confronts today.

(All of the above articles have been taken straight from The Hindu. We owe it all to them. This is just an effort to consolidate opinions expressed in The Hindu in a subject-wise manner.)

Wednesday, December 28

India's CPEC Dilemma


India's CPEC Dilemma Twitterati


The $46 billion CPEC is the flagship project within the even more ambitious Belt-Road programme of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a transcontinental infrastructure project that would effectively convert the Middle Kingdom into the logistics hub of Eurasia and, potentially, the centre of the global economy.

Recent Development:

* A part of CPEC has been operationalized in November, 2016.
* Days after a senior Pakistani General suggested that India should shun its “enmity” with Pakistan and join the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project, the Chinese foreign ministry has called the offer a “goodwill gesture”, exhorting India to take it up.

India’s Reaction to CPEC thus far:

India has opposed the project, bilaterally with China “at the highest level” as well as at the UN. Relations with China have deteriorated considerably since President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pakistan to announce the project in April 2015. Initially, New Delhi sought to play down its significance, as it was made just weeks before Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to China, and the government would have hoped to dissuade Beijing from pushing the more objectionable projects that run through disputed territory.

Contextualizing the ‘offer’ to India to join CPEC:

The offer to India was made along with offers to other “neighbouring countries”.

Iran: Chabahar port in Iran, which was initially seen as a competitor of the China-developed Gwadar port in Pakistan, is now being featured as the latter's "sister port".

Central Asia: Central Asian republics are pinning their hopes on talks with the Taliban - and, thereby, on Pakistan's role in the process - for the settlement of the Afghanistan problem and the economic and trade boom that is expected to follow.

Afghanistan: Further north, despite its problems on terror from Pakistan, Afghanistan is becoming a nodal point for China’s connectivity projects to Iran.

Russia: After having maintained a studied distance from the CPEC, Russia has suddenly decided to link it with its own Eurasian Economic Union project. Read together with Russia's recent dalliances with Pakistan, including its latest tripartite meeting with China and Iran, whereby it has virtually ceded to Pakistan crucial control over peace-making in Afghanistan by agreeing to facilitate the slackening of international censure of the Taliban, it looks like the party in India's neighbourhood is truly hotting up.

Way Ahead:

The Hindu: While India has done well to shore up relations with others in the region, it cannot afford to be blindsided by their involvement with the OBOR project and Chinese plans. CPEC is no longer a project in Pakistan, but one that runs through it, a project that will link 64 countries.

The Telegraph: Isolation, or isolationism for that matter, one must remember, has never been in India's scheme of things. Fostering of economic ties and soft borders were the cornerstone of its plan to settle the Kashmir problem with Pakistan. However, isolation of India happens to be the centrepiece of Pakistan's strategy - economic or otherwise. China, as well the other nations betting on the CPEC, appear to have momentarily forgotten Pakistan's problematic regional perspective. It is all very well to link up China to West Asia through one belt, one road. But no economic ecology in the subcontinent can thrive if it fails to link up with India's vast market. India ought not to terribly worry about missing a party.

Note: What does CPEC indicate about China’s rise in Asia and the world order?

China’s very own Marshall Fund? Symbolically it would be potent evidence of what economic benefits a country that allies with Beijing can expect. Chinese officials themselves speak of how the CPEC will not be just about trade and transit, it will be about bringing stability to Pakistan. Taming, as it were, a rogue state with poured concrete. And, if successful, Beijing would be able to argue it succeeded where Washington had failed.

CPEC - a sign of the ability of the Chinese government to act strategically on a grand scale: This is not something that comes naturally to Beijing. Even the all-powerful Communist Party is known to be nervous about domestic reaction to its foreign ventures. One reason China’s foreign aid has been grants rather than loans has been the negative social media reaction it gets at home to the gifting of money to foreigners. The Belt-Road has also received criticism. Completing the CPEC would be evidence its public will support an expensive project of questionable economic benefits but great strategic consequence.

CPEC - A test of China’s ability to work holistically in a foreign land: The China and Pakistan relationship has so far been military-to-military. Building CPEC will mean working with almost every stakeholder in Pakistani society, not traditionally a strong point of Chinese foreign policy.

In the coming years the corridor will be a test not of Chinese engineering, but of that country’s ability to use its influence on a whole host of fronts – and how ready it is to be rules-making superpower.

Saturday, September 24

G-20: Origin, Performance Analysis and Relevance

G-20


UPSC GENERAL STUDIES: PAPER II (Important International institutions, agencies and fora- their structure, mandate.)

Table of Content:
Origin of G-20
Performance Analysis
Important Issues that can be Discussed
Utility of G-20
How to ensure better functioning?


Has the G20 lost its way, outlived its usefulness? Would it be more institutionally efficient to revert to other regional groupings that have overlapping conversations on these very subjects? It may well be time to re-examine the G20’s purpose and, if necessary, recast its vision and mission entirely……



Origin of G-20

The G-20, which emerged as a major global economic forum in the wake of the great financial crisis of 2008, was supposed to bring about a coordination of the economic policies of a group of countries whose economies together account for more than four-fifths of world gross domestic product, aimed at promoting global economic growth and guarding against the rise of protectionism.

G 20: Performance Analysis

Distressfully, even after eight years, it has achieved neither of these two aims.

Global economic growth is stuttering.

Rise of protectionism has almost been written off as an inevitable eventuality: As per the WTO, trade restrictions have now reached their highest in the developed market economies of the G-20 since 2008. Why is this happening? The triad economies (i.e. the USA, Western Europe and Japan are bent on preventing any further advance of the Chinese economy based on the engine of low cost exports.)

G-20 Hangzhou Summit, China (2016): Performance Analysis

Comparison of progress in 2008 to that in 2016: Numerous low-key objectives shared by multiple G20 members, such as strengthening enforcement against international tax avoidance and advancing cooperation on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, certainly got a shot in the arm from this G20 gathering. Yet, there is no comparison between the patchy and vague nature of progress in these smaller goals to the collaboratively evolved financial regulation architecture that emerged from the ashes of the 2008 meltdown and put the brakes on excessive risk-taking by banks. It would have been institutionally efficient to revert to specific and regional groupings that have overlapping conversations on these very subjects.

Forum used by leaders to raise their pet concerns:

Xi Jinping of China argued for consensus on “structural reforms” pertaining to cross-border investment norms.

American counterpart Barack Obama underlined the need for more cooperation within the grouping to tackle issues such as income inequality and tax avoidance.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi called on the member states to fight back terrorism by imposing sanctions on terror-sponsoring countries.

Dichotomy between stated and real agenda of G-20 2016: Though their narratives were framed within the context of resolving “common structural issues”, they did little to actually further this objective. The communiqué issued at the end of the Hangzhou G-20 summit tried to give the impression that the G-20 leaders had committed themselves to “usher(ing) in a new era of global growth,” but clearly, Washington, Brussels and Tokyo were more concerned about cutting China’s steel industry down to size.

Issues that could have been raised

Monetary Policy: The G20 could have made a strong case for central banks to at least acknowledge their international responsibilities instead of only catering to their domestic mandates.

Fiscal Policy: Similarly on fiscal policy, we are still not sure whether a fiscal stimulus initiated by governments (with low aggregate demand) to inject more liquidity necessarily helps in spurring investment or spending. Evidence from most G20 countries (through consumption and investment data) indicates that a fiscal push alone (combined with lower interest rates) may not spur aggregate spending.

Greater coordination on tax avoidance issues: This is one area in which the G20 has already tried to cobble together some form of a consensus, but issues related to the creation of a less disproportionate tax structure require more attention. Rationalising the tax structure will help limit capital movement by tax-avoiding corporations to countries where taxes have been deliberately kept at low levels, allowing for an oligopolisation of sectoral markets globally. A good example here is the European Commission’s recent ruling on Apple Inc, according to which the corporation owes $14.5 billion to Ireland in taxes.

Utility of G-20

G-20 countries account for around four fifth of global GDP. G-20 by virtue of being a smaller group should try and come out with a coherent approach to solving problems faced by the global economy and then take this approach to other foras such as the EU, IMF, WTO and other bodies to take further the process of global coordination on important policies. Unless the G-20 does this, it will not be solving any real purpose except from being a talk-shop for leaders.

How to ensure the functioning of G-20 as per its utility?

Empirical method of setting the agenda of the meeting must be evolved.

Action-taken report should be submitted as to what progress has been made on the agenda discussed in the previous meetings, and what needs to be done going ahead.


Establishment of a permanent office may be considered to ensure that the coherence on policy issues achieved in the annual meeting gets reflected in the working of other specific foras.